Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:15:50 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 21:10:42, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >Hello, > >>That is wrong. You can't claim a draw, just because you are a bit ahead in >>material, and _way_ behind on time. I have directed many tournaments over >>the years. This has _never_ been in a rule book. There are cases about >>positions where one side can't possibly win, so the other side can't possibly >>win on time. But here, the human couldn't stop the clock and claim a draw >>just because he claimed the game was winnable but he didn't have enough >>time. >> >>What rule book are you looking at? >> >>Certainly not the FIDE rules of chess... > > >I am looking at the CFC Laws of Chess, which are essentially the FIDE rules >(unlike the USCF, the CFC rules follow the FIDE rules extremely closely). > >And I quote: > >"Article 10: Quickplay Finish > > 10.1. A 'quickplay finish' is the last phase of a game, when all the >remaining moves must be made in a limited time. > > 10.2. If the player has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may >claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the > clocks and summon the arbiter. > > (a) If the arbiter is satisfied the opponent is making no effort to win the >game by normal means, or that it is not possible to > win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he >shall postpone his decision. > > (b) If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two >extra minutes thinking time and the game shall > continue in the presence of the arbiter. > > (c) Having postponed his decision, the arbiter may subsequently declare the >game drawn, even after a flag has fallen" > >Fritz was in a clearly lost position, and Tiviakov would have no problem having >the arbiter rule by way of 10.a for him. > Your interpretation is that rule is _wrong_. The rule you quoted was intended to handle one case: I have a King rook and pawn and a lot of time. You have a king and rook and practically no time. The position is dead drawn, so I just make moves trying to run you out of time. You can invoke the above rule, ask an arbiter and have the game declared drawn. You can _not_ invoke the above rule just because you have more material than I do, but hardly any time. It doesn't work that way. The above rule prevents my trying to simply run you out of time. It doesn't establish any threshold that says "if the side running out of time has two or more extra pawns, he may claim a draw." The rule simply says that the side with more time _must_ be trying to make progress to win, and not just be shuffling a piece waiting on the opponent's flag to fall. If I can prove I have pushed a pawn every 10 moves, that is _clearly_ making progress. > >>>A few other people seem to think that offering the draw at 2 minutes was >>>inappropriate and that the operator would be doing Tiviakov a favour by offering >>>a draw with say only a few seconds left to go. This is also untrue. With 1 >>>second to go, Tiviakov can stop the clock and call over a TD, once again claimin >>>g a draw. >> >>This is simply incorrect. > > >No, it is not incorrect. Please once again refer to the quote I made above. Your quote is correct. Your interpretation of the quoted material is wrong. > > >>Offering a draw was certainly a gentlemanly way of handling the issue. Frans >>didn't want to win on time. He saw no way for the human to win in a sudden- >>death ending... had the flag fallen, the human would have _lost_. I don't know >>how you think he could have claimed a draw, unless he had a forced repetition. >>But he had to actually repeat the position a third time before he could claim >>the draw. You can't claim "the possibility of a repetition"... that isn't in >>my rule book... > > >First - I didn't state anything at all about repition in my post. >Second - most reasonable human players would have resigned long ago - the >operator was not in any way shape or form being gentlemanly by offering a draw. >- Tiviakov did not want a draw - he obviously thought he had a chance to win or >he would have offered one himself earlier and avoided getting into such pressure >with 2 minutes to go. >- Tiviakov did not need the operator's offer to obtain a draw. Yes he did. He can't claim a draw just because he is a pawn up and about to lose on time. That isn't what the rule says. It says the side with more time must not be trying to make any progress, before the rule can be used. >- Continuing on in a lost position where the only chance to win is by the flag >and then later offering a draw doesn't seem gentlemanly at all to me, in fact it >seems a downright rude attempt to weasel a half point or more out when the >operator should have resigned earlier. You really resign when down 1 or 2 pawns? I don't. I might resign if I am down a piece, or a rook, or a queen. But not one or two pawns. I often give one or two pawns for an attack. > >>Sudden death has been around for 20+ years. I don't particularly like them. >>But they do stop the ridiculously long impossible to win games that make a >>TD pull his hair out trying to get pairings done on time... > > >I don't think it is much of an improvement - on one hand you are frustrated >about not getting pairings done - on the other you are running around like a >chicken with your head cut off trying to be at every time scramble :P >Personally, I'd rather wait a bit on the pairings and have good chess. > > >>sudden death is no advantage for a computer when you have a human operator. >>The human takes time... unlike on ICC with an automatic interface... > > >It is a huge advantage! The likelihood of a human blundering with extremely low >ammounts of time left is much greater than the likelihood of a computer doing >the same. Computers will outplay humans to a greater extent with shorter time >controls, so of course the last portion of a sudden death time control favours >the computer. > I was talking about the case where both are low on time. A manual computer has problems that the human doesn't have (one extra operation for each move, reading the screen or typing the move). > >>Probably true. But the GMs visit the chess servers often enough that this isn't >>a problem in general. > > >Do you really think that a 5 0 or a 15 0 game with a GM on a chess server is of >anywhere near the quality of game that you will get over the board in a standard >time control? I play a fair number of very long games vs GM players. But I have to log on as a guest to keep them 'private'. Of course there is little point in tuning to play GM players if you can't get into a tournament or match to actually play one for real. > >Tell me - if you had the choice of having Crafty play a GM in an OTB game with >tournament time controls as opposed to playing a 5 0 game against a GM (at >least, somebody you think is a GM, and who's true identity you are never 100% >sure of) on a chess server? > > >On a more general note - I think this thread has brought up a few issues: > >1. Computer operators should be people experienced at tournament chess (people >who have actually played tournament games, and have actually TDed as well) >2. Since many of the people in this thread are from the USA, this point comes up >when concerning rules - people who's chess experience comes from USCF play need >to brush up on the FIDE rules before they make an opinion about any rules >related issue. This is not any sort of attack on the USCF or its rules, I think >they are fine rules, it's just that sometimes they are quite different from the >FIDE rules which are what is generally used in major international events. You fit the above, you notice. Your interpretation of the rule is way wrong. An experienced TD would not make that mistake, or try to interpret the rule as you did. >3. Computer operators need to be as obsequious as they can reasonably be. My >personal take on the matter is that if my program was in Fritz' situation, I >would rather resign a position (even one that you could technically argue the >program had every right to continue on) and get to play again another day than >to get the point and not play again. > > >Regards, >Adrien.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.